Anthony Aguirre - How are Multiple Universes Generated?

Cosmologists believe that multiple universes really exist; they call the whole vast collection, which might even be infinite in number, the 'multiverse'. But how are all these universes generated?

[dbk]

Why do many cosmologists talk as if inflation is a fact despite it's problems? Yes, it does solve the flatness and horizon problems but it also introduces greater fine tuning problems. It's initial conditions need to be even more fine tuned to occur. Hence there is no reason to believe that it's a solid hypothesis besides it' ability to solve the horizon problem.

[jamesruscheinski]

Could inflation field be made up of one dimension strings or branes?

[lycanzhp]

Here's a thought. My grandfather once told me when I was a young boy that maybe we were living in the dirt underneath a Giants fingernail....

[dongshengdi]

The multiverse problem.
By Paul Davies, a cosmologist not bound by any tradition.

"I usually say two cheers for the multiverse because there are good reasons of physics and cosmology for supposing that what we see may not be all you get. That there may be other regions of space and time that could be different. So it's not an unreasonable speculation. However, it falls far short of being a complete theory of existence, which is often presented as. That as if there's a multiverse, then we can forget about all the mysteries of the universe because it's all explained. Everything is out there somewhere. End of story.

Well, it's simply not true, because to get a multiverse, you need a universe-generating mechanism. Something has got to make all those big bangs go bang. So you're going to need some laws of physics to do that. And you can say, well, where do they all come from? So all you've done is shift the problem of existence up from the level of universe to the level of multiverse, but you haven't explained it.

I suppose, for me, the main problem is that what we're trying to do is explain why the universe is as it is by appealing to something outside of it. In this case an infinite number of universes outside of it. That, to me, is no better than traditional religion that appeals to an unseen unexplained God that is outside of the universe.

I'm prepared to accept that what we see isn't the totality, that there may be regions of space and time, other universes, if you like, that could be rather different from what we observe. But I certainly don't believe that all possible universes are out there, and that the explanation for the universe that we see is because everything imaginable exists, and that this particular one we see, just because it happens to be one that we live in. I think that falls far short of a proper explanation. Indeed, I think it's contradictory and absurd."

[jackpullen]

Where are these guys, I see what looks to be a hot spring in background...

[jackpullen]

If quantum physics and the cosmos are both indeed infinite, then all things are indeed possible...

[OrionMichaelGuy]

All of the Cores of the Cosmos, including Black Holes are Solid Crystal Core Quantum Computers!

When the Black Hole gets heavy enough it does go through a dimensional shift and "falls" into a new set of Geometric Space-Time

Think of it like this, the Supermassive Black Hole falls through this Space-Time Continuum and creates its own new Space-Time Continuum, and its own new Universe

The physics are actually already mapped out, but the concept is that the new Universe within the Supermassive Black Hole has a "Time Rate" or a "Tickrate" that it MUCH faster than our own, so inside the Supermassive Black Hole Time occurs much faster compared to our continuum

And because all Matter in the Universe, all the Crystal Cores of the Cosmos, through the use of quantum computations are actually able to grow not only themselves, but the space they occupy, the new Universe within the Supermassive Black Hole has the potential to either Grow and Expand, or it will Shrivel and Contract

If the Supermassive Black Hole is growing! It will be able to spit Matter and Energy back up into the Universe that it is residing in and grow a Galaxy around itself!

The idea is this, Planets grow into Stars, Stars grow larger and larger and have planetary nebula and give birth to more planets, the planets become stars, the biggest stars become black holes, the biggest black holes become galaxies, while each one is a Crystal Core Quantum Computer and through the use of physics they are all able to grow not only their Matter but they also grow the space they occupy

I know it is simple, if not superficial to say planets become stars stars become black holes, black holes become supermassive black holes and host their own universe and then feed the universe that is supporting them by growing a galaxy around themselves, but that is exactly what is happening

Just like life the Universe grows and expands, to infinity and beyond!

The Universe is a Multidimensional Multiverse, that is a Cascade of Universes falling infinity into more and more massive and dense states

Black Holes within Black Holes, Universes within Universe

The physics is all mapped out, there is no big bounce and there is no big crunch, there is just the continuation of the ever expanding continuum, and the infinite continuums within

[kahlread]

If you add cosmology to neuro science and consciousness, then why are there not universes inside our universe? For instance, What would a tree's universe be or look like if it was conscious? What is a seagull's universe? If reality operates as a fractal, then there would be infinite universes inside of each other like Russian Dolls. Nobody seems to throw this into the equation.

[jamesruscheinski]

Maybe infinite inflation field outside universe which stretches out tiny speck universe (from energy fluctuation?) at uniform exponential expansion?

[RickDelmonico]

Basically, there are three options for describing the origins of the universe;
1, Something from nothing, in the beginning was nothing then, it exploded.
2, Perpetual motion, the universe always was but never runs down.
3, Creation, there was a designer involved in the creation of the universe.
Each of these is equally unlikely so, we can start from each of them and look for meaningful ways to prefer one over the other. Our only option is a subjective conclusion based on subjective experience and I defy anyone to prove anything regarding the origins of the universe (unfalsifiable proof).
It seems to me that this interface that we call the material world is an expression of the information it is constructed from. We commonly use a two dimensional interface when we access a computer but I don't think that will last much longer, at some point three dimensional interfaces will be the norm.
This information system has transcendent properties like wetness and rigidity and so, we get consciousness at the extreme end of this hierarchy. Consciousness self organizes from the relationships that exist in the lower levels of of a nested hierarchy of behaviors that are seeking value. All living systems seek value regardless of what the truth happens to be. If you think about this for a moment, you have to admit that this is very strange. Meaning is constructed from the operation of exchanging truth for value. Approximations are useful in getting us close enough to the truth to extract value from it but really, because of levels of description in this information system, we can never completely describe anything, we have to round it off at some point and it is this rounding off that completes the process. This reminds me of the endless digits of Pi.

[jamesruscheinski]

Would energy fluctuation of one dimension string produce two dimension quantum wave / field? Might such an energy fluctuation of one dimension string start universe from inflation field, in which two dimension quantum waves / fields develop?

[myfairjew]

In regards to the level of cancer in this comment section:

Physicists follow mathematics. 1 thing and another thing are 2 things, and it always will be this way whether there is a God or there is no God. To think that these ideas are in opposition to the existence of whatever God might be, is to make an anthropomorphic projection onto the ideas that are purely mathematical at their core. These topics have nothing to do with whether there is a God or no God. Any mention of the supernatural or metaphysical results in an off-topic discussion.

[jamesruscheinski]

Is there anything outside and between the bubble / multiple universes?

[stpkopp]

So amazing that all those cosmologists are either too ignorant or too arrogant to have read Kant...

[brigham]

I'm not a cosmologist and I don't play one on TV. But I don't see any problem with the universe existing due solely to natural reasons, that is, no thinking creator is necessary. While no one can give precise data on just how the universe and we (humans) came to be, we can speak broadly. Hopefully future generations will start to fill in the details. So here is what I think: Complete nothingness, no space and no time, is not "natural." It always existed. No creator necessary. To say otherwise invites the question who created the creator? And every answer I have heard about this is nonsense. The creator "just is" is basically the answer. (Sarcastic) Whatever. So why can't the universe just be? If a god can just be, then the universe can just be. Now given enough time stuff is going to happen, including chemical reactions that can lead to life and intelligent life. Is everything random? Well, maybe and maybe not. It may be completely random that we are here, or perhaps our universe (and any other universe) must obey certain laws that just are and date back to the beginning, that is, original conditions. If there are multiple universes there could even be different original conditions for different universes. If our universe had a beginning, that doesn't mean it is THE BEGINNING of space and time, only the beginning of our space and time or as far back as we can measure (maybe this will change, maybe not). If you want to bring a creator into the mix, the best you can do is be very vague about it. Once you start making claims about it and showing me its bestselling book, telling me it sacrificed its only son, blah, blah, blah, you are officially a fucktard.

[winrobee]

Multiverses of Time

The system of multiverses according to SO (Systems of Order) is logical. We can follow the SO levels to #10 before we have to suppose very much:
1 [we have decided to examine]
2 information
3 energy
4 space
5 particles
6 stochastic systems of matter
7 existence
8 ever
9 alternity
10 physicality

The first 6 aren't actually multiverses, but phenomena inside of multiverses, starting with the most rudimentary possible. 7-10 are the multiverse levels based on temporal phenomena.

7 Existence, the one of which is local to us is Is. This is comprised of a quantum mechanical state which has undergone decoherence. (Or, if you like, undergone quantum mechanical collapse)

8 Ever, local of which is Forever. Consisting of every existence "historically attached" among every of those existences. Which means all of the concatenated "timelines" which share histories by having the same state/existence in their past, present, or future

9 Alternity, local of which is Eternity. All of the existences corresponding to a possible state in a universe, even without smooth historical attachments. That is, the superspace of all quantum states that could be in the space of an existence. I propose that travel to another ever in Eternity could be by waiting for a quantum mechanical fluke-that is, by spending enough time that unprecedented structures of order arise (e.g. time goes back).

10 Physicality, local of which is Ergo. A physicality I define to be a structure with the quality that the structure's outside cannot produce a statistical deviation on (cannot affect) the structure's inside. By defining energy to be a statistical deviation from the vacuum (even a random fluctuation), we can conjecture that there is a local region of all shared energy we can name Ergo.

[winstonchang]

Yes, true....deep thinking about anything, including quantum physics, should aim to it ends up TROUBLING your mind,
then, it'd be like betting money on playing one on one with a professional basketball player....You'll just succeed in defeating your old idea,
which is a CREDIT IN ITSELF...but you would be

[salmanCCIE]

The only reason they have multiverse concept is because they want to answer why the universe is so hospitable to life. Considering a lot of other extremely lucky coincidences including this hospitability, majority of humans have always considered that so many coincidences are impossible and believed that the universe was created by a powerful external being whom all humans of all times and all places called god.
They theorized multiverse while they cannot answer the fundamental question of how nothing caused something in the beginning of the universe.

[Garymuslim]

Yeah, sounds like Dr. Who and the Tardis!!!!

[Garymuslim]

He's on shaky ground it seems....